Paul Ryan: Too soon to talk about future

One week after he and running mate Mitt Romney failed to deny President Barack Obama a second term in the White House, Paul Ryan said it’s too soon to talk about his political future — either in the Capitol or in terms of laying the groundwork for a presidential run.

“Oh gosh, we just finished a presidential election. I think everybody’s tired of talking about presidential politics. I am,” Ryan told a reporter from the CBS affiliate in Madison, Wis., in an interview that aired Monday evening.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO LIVE: What’s next for Ryan?

POLITICO LIVE: New members descend on Cap Hill

As he transitions from the hustle and frenetic pace of the campaign trail back to the grind of Washington, there’s much speculation about what his future will hold, and whether he will emerge as his party’s 2016 presidential nominee or channel his popularity with fellow conservatives into other efforts, either inside the House or out. Ryan brushed off questions on the subject.

“Right now, I look at what I’ve just been reelected to do, to represent Wisconsin, to be the chairman of the Budget Committee, to deal with these budget and fiscal and economic issues,” Ryan said. “I’m going to throw myself back to that work because it’s work that needs to get done.”

Ryan, in a statement the morning after he lost his bid for the vice presidency, said he planned to continue “his responsibilities as chairman of the House Budget Committee and representative of Wisconsin’s First Congressional District.”

“We thought this was going to be a very close race. We thought we had a good chance of winning. I think the surprise was some of the turnout — some of the turnout, especially in urban areas, which definitely gave President Obama the big margin to win this race,” he said.

“When we look at the map here, Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and then looking like we were going to lose them. That was when it became very clear to us that we were not going to win.”

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, some pointed fingers at Ryan for failing to deliver Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes, which Obama won in 2008 by 14 points.

During the WISC-TV interview, Ryan said he and Romney were “surprised with the outcome” of Tuesday’s election, particularly the turnout. But Ryan conceded that his home state — which has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1988 — had always been a reach for the GOP ticket.

“Well, we always knew Wisconsin was an uphill fight. Wisconsin hasn’t gone Republican since the Reagan ’84 landslide. Mitt didn’t pick me for Wisconsin, for a certain state. He picked me for issues, for governing, for taking on the debt crisis,” he said. “We had hoped to win Wisconsin; we fought very hard here for Wisconsin. We cut President Obama’s lead in half but nevertheless, it wasn’t enough.”

During a telephone interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Monday, Ryan said he was sitting with Romney and his family when they realized they had lost the race.

“We were with the Romneys when we knew it was over,” he said, describing the mood in the hotel room as “pretty sad.”

Ryan — who simultaneously ran for reelection to his House seat as he was running for the vice presidency — described his first loss to the Milwaukee paper as “a foreign experience; it’s tough to describe it.”

“The Romneys treated us like family members. They accepted my family and our staff in a great way. We gave the country specific ideas and solutions, a different vision,” Ryan said. “And that’s the kind of race we wanted to run. We’re pleased with the race we ran. It didn’t work out the way we wanted it to.”

Ryan’s first national television interview, with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, will air Tuesday.

Readers' Comments (38)

Marginal tax rate on the portion of household income > $250,000 was at the heart of both Obama's platform and Romney's platform. Obama promised to increase the top rate, while Romney promised to decrease the top rate. They debated and spoke about this difference in "philosophy" ad nauseum. How did American voters respond?

- Obama won 65% of the Electoral College (332 to 206)

- Obama won the popular vote by over 3 million

- Democrats won 53% of the Senate, plus 2 independents

- Democrats picked up new seats in the House, in an election that replaced almost as many incumbents as in 2010

Note that Democrats won the majority in state-wide elections, while GOTP won the majority of House seats that are based on districts - GERRYMANDERING! The GOTP governors and state legislatures rigged the local election process to maintain their incumbents through redistricting, therefore the House GOTP majority does not represent a true majority interest.

For example, Dan Lungren, R-CA 7th, won his gerrymandered district in 2010 with 57% of the vote. Since then, redistricting has been removed from party operatives and instead was conducted by a non-partisan citizen's committee under a CA law passed in 2010. Within a fair and honest redistricting effort, Lungren will lose his seat to the Democratic challenger in a close race.

Not once in the 2012 election cycle did I see any political ad that included my GOTP representative's pledge of allegiance to Grover Norquist. Norquist insists that this is "a pledge to the citizens" and yet not one GOTP candidate proclaimed this "lofty ideal" on their website or in their promotional advertising.

Gridlock Grover's Oath of Obstruction is pure BS and hypocrisy. "The Pledge" allows for increasing effective tax rates on the middle (broaden the base!), while preserving tax preferences at the top. "The Pledge" betrays constituents by precluding our elected representatives from working IN GOOD FAITH for constituents' best interests.

Any elected member of Congress who participated with Norquist should be called out, charged with treason, and recalled.

I, ____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____district of the state of _________ and to the American people that I will: One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and Two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Here is how it works:

Part One - Since marginal income tax rates are usually increased at the top, this pledge is designed to protect the top.

Part Two - Net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits tends to hurt the middle more than the top, while matching with reduced tax rates, again, favors the top. This pledge allows for increasing taxes in the middle to pay for decreasing taxes at the top.

Do not let these corrupted politicians and lobbyists mislead you by conflating "rate" with "revenue." This is purely a "Pledge for Plutocracy" and the GOTP has become the party of greed, in every sense.

Gridlock Grover's Tax Pledge is BS and hypocrisy and political obstruction.

"The Pledge" allows for increasing effective tax rates on the middle (broaden the base!), while preserving tax preferences at the top. "The Pledge" betrays constituents by precluding our elected representatives from working IN GOOD FAITH for constituents' best interests. Any elected member of Congress who participated with Norquist should be called out, charged with treason, and recalled.

"Broaden the Base and Flatten the Rates" = Higher Tax in the Middle pays for Cuts at the Top.

Stop the tax pledge corruption by applying the same tax rate schedule to all individual income, regardless of source.

Eliminate the tax loophole preferences for "unearned income" to eliminate the income transfer games. Reagan did this in 1986, but the top rate at 28% was far too low. Go back to Reagan 1986 and add some extra marginal tax rate tiers at the top.

Or let the Bush cuts expire and go back to the Clinton rates, but eliminate the preference loophole for "unearned income" (cap gains, dividends, etc.) so all individual income is treated the same.

The reason business income flows through individual tax returns since Reagan is because Reagan dropped individual tax rates to below the corporate tax rates. If Congress reverses this formula, so that individual tax rates at the top are greater than corporate tax rates, capital will be retained in businesses instead of being extracted in the form of individual income, where it is sequestered as personal wealth. This will encourage higher wages in the middle, instead of wealth extraction at the top - which will increase domestic growth and overall tax revenue.

If Congress eliminates estate tax, sequestered national wealth will be out of circulation permanently and a new American aristocracy will be institutionalized.

2) Eliminate the tax preference loophole for "unearned income" so that all individual income is treated according a common rate schedule;

3) Apply FICA taxes to all income without a cap, reduce the FICA rate, remove FICA match from employers and make FICA an individual tax instead, allow a FICA tax credit against ordinary income tax (up to $1500 refundable);

4) Reduce the corporate tax rate such that the top individual marginal tax rates exceed the corporate rate;

5) Phase in the "sequester" as a structured and orderly process over the next four years. Should Congress Just Go Home?

What happened the last time GOP "flattened the tax and broadened the base?"

Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1982. He cut it from 50% to 28% in 1986. And yet, of the 15 largest tax increases since 1950, 5 were enacted under Reagan (1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987). So, if GOP dropped the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, who paid the net "revenue" (tax) increases? (Hint: it was not the 1%.) Middle class picked up the tab.

No, 'Obamacare' isn't the 'the largest tax increase in the history of the world' (in one chart)

Posted by Ezra Klein on July 2, 2012 at 8:15 am (link to complete article at bottom)

"Since the Supreme Court decision, Republicans have been calling the Affordable Care Act “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” Politifact rates this false. Kevin Drum’s got a table of the 15 significant tax increases since 1950, and the Affordable Care Act, which amounts to a tax increase of 0.49 percent of GDP, comes in 10th. Austin Frakt took Drum’s table and made a chart:

But [ACA] does include a number of tax hikes. The individual mandate, however, isn’t one of the big ones. It’s only expected to raise $27 billion during the next decade. The largest tax increase in the law is on high earners, who will see their Medicare payroll taxes increase by 0.9 percentage point and who will also pay a slightly higher rate on investment income. That raises more than $200 billion. There’s also the tax on unusually expensive health insurance plans, which raises $30 billion in the first decade, and much more in the second. There’s a $60 billion tax on insurance companies."

Reagan initiated the demise of the middle class. 30 years of "Tinkerbell Economics" - fairy dust - has damaged the economy by gutting the middle class, and it started with dropping the individual income tax rates for the top 1% while raising taxes on the 99%. If you provide for tax-preferred income among the wealthy people who can manipulate their income, you end up with rampant greed and corruption. The economy is churned as wealth is extracted from circulation. Converging tax rates Average federal tax rates by income group, 1960-2004

Updated December 3, 2010

More compensation heading to the very top Ratio of average CEO total direct compensation to average production worker compensation, 1965-2009

Updated January 21, 2011

Family income growth in two eras Real annual family income growth by quintile, 1947-79 and 1979-2010

The wealth created in our market economy has been redistributed by a corrupted state - from the workers who produce the wealth to the capitalists who own the property and finance the politicians.

A "free market" does not exist in America. The market is rigged to favor the wealthy few who bribe our "representatives" to write new rules. Our domestic economy has "gone bust" as a result of reversing and/or neutering a critical set of banking regulations and labor laws and tax policies that were enacted decades ago to avoid a repeat of the last time our economy "went bust" in the 1930's. Now they are out to dismantle our social safety nets.

Same intolerant, misogynistic ideologue as before, except now he's also had the chance to campaign against his basic core principles; he's also been exposed as a major-league hypocrite, having railed against the stimulus bill while seeking its benefits for his political contributors

If you look at Ryans speech pattern, it looks like a fourth grader is speaking.

he flatters himself by saying he was chosen because of his "ideas."

he wasn't chosen- he was used. Romney is a user,as we all know(except Ryan).and Romney would easily have shelved Ryan,had he won. Ryan is so delusional, he cannot fathom his own absurdity,being on the ticket with the inventor of Obamacare.

Is Ryan that stupid? you betcha- as Ryan would say. golly gee, now lets all get back to work.

Thank God Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney were not allowed to get anywhere near the White House. He hasn't grasped that so many women came out in droves just to make sure he and his backwards policies were not allowed to be instituted. Hope he goes to confession and seeks forgiveness for his wanting to thrust women back into the middle ages.

Ryan is a Dan Quayle- done!! He is the party of no, party over country, he walked out of Simpson-Bowles because he refused to work with just 6 Dems. His budget didn't add. His first time on the national stage the Repub convention he came across as a liar. He didn't just stretch the truth he out and out lied. America will never forget his boy show. Why did Mitt pick him? He had zero foreign policy experience. He brought nothing to ticket not even his own state.

Biggest joke is he co sponsored with Atkin the person hood bill which will make a cell a human and make the birth control pill, the morning after pill, the IUD, Diaphragm and other forms of birth control illegal. This is why the Catholic church supports him. Ryan says the method of conception shouldn't determine the reason for an abortion.

Ryan is a hypocrite- he hasn't demanded the govern tell men they must give one of their kidneys to those on waiting lists that will die without it. He doesn't want the govern telling men what they must do with their bodies but it it okay to tell women. Ryan is a joke.